Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth Monday, December 30
2002 Volume 02 : Number 038
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 23:25:30 -0600
From: "William Jeffrey Crabtree"
<
wjcrabtree@earthlink.net>
Subject:
Team3S: RE: Snow tires
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about with snow tires. It's pretty
much common sense. The basic principal (I've learned this from also
being a
jeeper): bigger knobs on the tires, in other words "WIDER TREAD", are
less likely to let snow get packed into your tires. Many serious
jeepers use MUD terrain tires in the winter because it allows no snow or
ice to get built up in them which makes tires more likely to slip and
slide. Look at the tread designs rather than the brand names!!!!
If you REAAAAAALY wanna drive your 3S in the snow and ice with the best
possible tires, look for tires with the widest tread pattern possible.
Also, you may want to consider narrower tires in the snow. Less
surface area = more pressure per square inch of ground contact. The
more weight you put on a smaller area also makes it harder for your wheels
to slip.
My best advice, and I know it's not feasible for everyone, is to buy an old
beater jeep to pound through the snow with....the heaters work great,
you're alot less likely to be seen sitting on the side of the road waiting
for a tow truck to drag your @ss out of a ditch, AND even if you do have an
OOPS, it's a heck of a lot cheaper to fix an old jeep than a
Stealth. Take my word for it.
- -Jeff Crabtree
2K Wrangler TJ Sport <-----the
workhorse!!
'91 R/T TT (3SI # 0499) <----ALMOST
Done
St. Louis, MO(we got six inches of snow Christmas eve
and I had a BLAST in it!!)
------------------------------
Boring the block increases the chance of the block splitting under high HP
as Nissan RB26 blocks do.
Why would you want to increase the CR? I would be lowering it instead to
put in more boost.
Steve
Our
> engines can be opened up from 3.0L to 3.16L (which I am in the
process
> of doing) and compression ratio can be bumped up at the same
time
------------------------------
I'd stroke it before I bored it..
And lower the CR to at best 8:1, strengthen everything up, do massive head
and plenum work, get some real headers..and run 30psi. Ya might make
700-750Hp.
I got my celica to a daily reproducible 450Hp stroking to 2.2l, 27-28psi on
a T3/T4 dual BB upgrade..but couldn't control temps...found out later the
radiator core was just plugged with shit..couldnt get air thru most of
it.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Steve Cooper wrote:
> Boring the block increases the chance of the block splitting under
> high HP as Nissan RB26 blocks do.
>
> Why would you want
to increase the CR? I would be lowering it instead
> to put in more
boost.
>
> Steve
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 11:47:56 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Octane booster on top of premium fuel.
Required octane at high altitudes can be reduced because air density is
reduced --- for normally aspirated engines. Chances for detonation increase
as the intake charge density increases. Note this is not directly related to
rich-lean mixtures. A higher density intake charge has the molecules packed
closer together, which improves combustion (also makes it happen faster) and
therefore increases the chances for detonation. Timing is reduced for denser
mixtures for both these reasons.
Our turbo models at higher altitudes compensate somewhat for the less-dense
air mixture. While the air is maybe 18% less dense here at 5500' ASL, our
turbo engines reduce this to maybe 8% less dense. Giving us a nice advantage
over the NA performance cars but also requiring that we keep octane levels
high (or at least more similar to sea level requirements) -- or use
water/alcohol injection.
- ---------- Original Message -------------
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002
11:37:47 -0700
From: Desert Fox <
bigfoot@simmgene.com>
Another thing for all of us to remember is that higher altitudes require
less octane. I live at 5,200 feet above sea level where premium fuel is
only 91 octane and regular is 85.5.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:18:40 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: 800+ hp???
>> The only thing that will increase hp in our cars is more
boost.
Not true at all! A more correct statement would be "the only thing that
will
increase hp in our cars is more air flow." But even that statement is
not
entirely correct.
Two other major "things" increases hp - and by that we must refer to *net*
hp. One is to improve the efficiency of the engine. This efficiency is
commonly expressed as brake specific fuel consumption, BSFC. Balancing an
engine helps in this regard. The other is to increase the engine
speed.
Improving intake and exhaust performance (that is volumetric efficiency)
helps in both of the above items. Other improvements that can increase hp
without changing boost include more efficient intercoolers (denser intake
charge at same boost pressure) and water/alcohol injection (reduced
detonation so better timing).
My web pages below provide more discussion and some calculators related to
this topic.
FWIW, ~700 real, net crank hp should result in sub 11-s 1/4 mile times for
our ~4000 lb cars.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:36:33 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Fuel Pressure Gauge
Being one of the very few 3S member who actually monitor fuel line
pressure,
I can comment. I would suggest NOT installing a T adapter at this
time (even
if you know what sensor you plan to get and what its fitting is).
First, there is no reason to compromise the fuel line until you actually
are
ready to install a sensor (removing the battery and tray are not a big
deal).
Second, the location right after the fuel filter is not the best
place to
monitor line pressure. At the FPR is perhaps better place. But
after the fuel
filter is better than no monitoring at all.
In fact, I feel monitoring fuel line pressure is so important, that I
installed this sensor before I even bought a boost controller.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:35:03 +0100
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp??? (was: Just posted this on 3SI)
Unfortunately, my car has not dynoed more than 467hp (crank) and this was
then when we found out that there are several limits in our engine.
The 10 hp per psi mark seems not to be linear a long time as there are much
other factors that come in play. Some have already be mentioned. The more
and more I'm into those engines I think that not only the water jackets
are less as good as in other engines (I saw 3 2nd gen having the same
overheating problem in the rear bank. But please not, the fuel/air mixture
is what makes the power, not only airflow, or boos or fuel alone !!
Increasing the compression ratio is definitely a bad idea. Better one
lowers it while increasing pressure as well as designing free float
pistons to prevent the expensive damage that occurs when the timing belt
slips. 3.1 liters is definitely the max I'd bore out the engine as the
walls are really thinner I ever thought until I had the engine open.
There are a lot problems we are faced to in the stock stuff : ignition,
fuel delivery, air flow paths, head design and exhaust just to name a few.
There are about three parts in the heads that need to be grinded to
increase the air flow to the max. Also the intake manifold could be optimized
for high rpm air flow what of course will sacrifice low end torque (short
runners it is). The intercooler stuff is already solved with some mega
huge overkill cores in the front. Of course the newly free sides can be used for
shedding cold air to the air filters. The pistons and rods may be replaced
with other stronger design but of course these are the basics like the
fuel delivery system. Double fuel pumps are an external monster device are
necessary as well as a good computerized system (like the AEM).
But how much crank hp do we have then at the end... nobody really knows as
some cars have been measured with high power but the track times are not
approving the power so far. I'm still against the track time power
calculation as the driver is a complicated factor that comes in place ! But at
the end this is what you guys are looking for. Today, I'd say 650 crank hp
is what we can achieve with an engine that will fine all days. A track
engine may run up to 850 hp one quarter mile with race gas and all the cool
injection stuff (NOX).
Before the big mods I ran my car on the local dyno and I found 395hp on the
crank at 1.14 bars of boost and some knock. But please keep in mind, that
running it on the dyno means the highest stress you can give an engine.
Not enough air and not a good cooling what finally may end in damaging the
engine, been there, done that. With the same setup my car had no knock on
the road while knocking around 20 on the dyno. We have another dyno here
where I'm going the very next time to check the power of the new blue 3000GT.
This one provides the best cooling I ever saw and a 2 minutes pull should
easily be possible without any danger. On this dyno we had Olegs white 95
with 357 magnums and 550 injectors. He pulled out 405hp at the crank
around 1.05 bars. Of course he had some more mods too and we were not able
to measure knock but it is proven that larger turbos provide more and
colder air (of course) and therefore help a lot to increase power at the
same boost level.
So what you need to achieve 550 hp... the 550cc injectors will be at 93 %,
not the best but ok. A fuel computer (ARC, VPC or AEM) that gets rid of
the MAS. Large turbos, at least the 357 Magnums (17g size), a good
intercooling with knock control. Forged pistons, 3.1 l max size. Good ignition
stuff that provides an optimum spark. With 20 psi of boost, the 550hp at
the crank should be achieved.
What do we additionally need to get 800hp ? Lowering the CR to 8,
optimizing the intake paths, optimize the heads, increase limiter, solid
lifters, GT 399, 1000cc injectors (~831 hp at 80% IDC), free exhaust
paths, good cooling and ~30 psi at 8500 rpms.... then the calc says that
we may get 800 hp at the crank. The ignition issue (delivery to the plugs)
is still not solved yet, the fuel and ignition map tuning is on a great
way with the AEM box and we all know how to make the cars lighter. Well, there
are cars around that are almost close to such a setup (the 720cc injectors
are maxxed out at
~750hp) and some have been on a 10 second power pull on the
dynos. Some also have been to the tracks and have shown the power. But
most of these monsters also broke, either a tranny or a clutch stayed goodbye
as well as output shafts got grinded down and diffs failed, bearings
failed very quickly and even rods broke. The Mitsu mechanic who knows that
car for a long time now, once told me that the engines are prone to a fast
torque increase in the power band. This means a heavily shifting in the rising
part of the torque are that let the pistons crack on one side. I'm not
sure if this is solved with the best pistons and the best rings available
too.
I'm happy that I now have a daily driver 3000GT that I will not push above
1 bar as well as one that can become a monster one day. Therefore I don't
have the barrier anymore that avoided me to install an AEM or other nice
stuff, hehe. I expect to have 650 hp max soon with the GT368 turbos and the
optimized intake parts and heads and other goodies. If I achieve this I'm
very happy ... because I still have the stock pistons in that engine (I
got once screwed by a supplier and badly needed the car)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:45:07 +0100
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Fuel Pressure Gauge
An easy place to monitor the pressure is in between the connection to the
fuel rails. This little fuel line can be removed and with some adapters
build your own fuel rails connection with the fuel pressure sensor in it.
Unfortunately, there is not much room depending on the sensor but it seems to be
a good solution.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
jlucius@stealth316.com>
Sent:
Sunday, December 29, 2002 1:36 PM
> Being one of the very few 3S member who actually monitor fuel
line
> pressure, I can comment. I would suggest NOT installing a
Tee
> adapter at this time (even if you know what sensor you plan to
get
> and what its fitting is).
>
> First, there is no reason
to compromise the fuel line until you
> actually are ready to install a
sensor (removing the battery and
> tray are not a big deal).
>
Second, the location right after the fuel filter is not the best place
>
to monitor line pressure. At the FPR is perhaps better place. But
> after
the fuel filter is better than no monitoring at all.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:46:48 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Power steering belt size
>> Can anyone tell me what the correct size for the power steering
belt is?
The stock PS belt for the DOHC engine is part number MD172376. It has 3
grooves in it (4 peaks), is 9/16" wide, and is ~18" long of you press the
two
sides together (about 36.75" circumference).
Be sure you remove the bottom bolt on the adjuster pulley bracket to get
the
maximum range of movement of the adjuster. More info on my web page
below.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 05:11:36 -0800
From: "Tyson Varosyan" <
tigran@tigran.com>
Subject: Team3S:
Lets talk compression....
Few things I saw mentioned that raise questions in my mind. I myself being
in the middle of a rebuild am going to be getting a set of pistons that
are bored to 3.16, which I still think is very safe. I have an empty
shortblock sitting on an engine rack, there is plenty of meat on that thing and
it could likely go higher. The pistons I am getting have been designed to
completely eliminate the possibility of piston-valve interference which is
what killed the motor in the first place. They achieve this while bumping up
the compression ratio which from everything I understand should add power,
add boost efficiency (more HP/PSI) at the expense of possibly breaking
rods or blowing heads if I overboost.
So I would like to be educated with theories on CRs, boost and bore size.
Maybe get a debate going? Like I said, I know a guy whom is running this
setup and I like it. Jeff, would love to hear how 3.16 is working for
you.
Tyson
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 05:18:36 -0800
From: "eK2mfg" <
eK2mfg@attbi.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Fuel Pressure Gauge
Let me step in here please for my shameless plug. I sell those adapters
that you are talking about. I would suggest this, Buy 4 of them from me
then upgrade your system to a dual line set-up. most FPR's come with a
port for the gauge. This mod however will run you about 390 in total unless you
go with that Defi gauge that runs about 220.00 then add 170 to my quote.
OR you could buy just the one fitting and replace the FPR only. I don't
want to say this is a must mod I sell but why monitor what you can't change? The
stock FPR is not adjustable so the gauge would be for show given you
couldn't do anything about it. But, if you got an aftermarket FPR for like
130 from summit then you could easily monitor AND adjust your pressure to
your needs. I figured with a summit catalog and my adapters it can be done
like this. Banjo bolt from the filter = 15 5' of braided line with 2
fittings for -6 ends = 21 NOS Y adapter = 30 2 short lines with fittings
like the 5' line = 24 4 of my adapters on both ends of both rails = 90
shipped 2 medium lines with fittings like before = 30 FPR like the
Aeromotive one with dual ports and FP port = 130 Mechanical gauge or
electronic gauge = 35/220 return line splice = 15
that's about it, might one or two things I forgot but the just of it for
sure. Understand that this really might not be the mod for you if your
sticking with stock, but just a heads up if you wanting to go all the way
with feeding those rails. The simple FPR fitting and a real FPR might give you
what your looking for...and in fairness I know another place is selling a
bolt on regulator that bolts on to the rail and is adjustable, but 150
comes to mind on that one I am not sure don't quote me. Point is you have many
options other than the guy that is up at 5AM trying to push his
product
:) I am going to bed!
bobk.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Sent:
Sunday, December 29, 2002 4:45 AM
> An easy place to monitor the pressure is in between the connection to
> the fuel rails. This little fuel line can be removed and with some
> adapters build your own fuel rails connection with the fuel pressure
> sensor in it. Unfortunately, there is not much room depending on the
> sensor but it seems to be a good solution.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 05:25:09 -0800
From: "eK2mfg" <
eK2mfg@attbi.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
Lets talk compression....
Can I add to this? I will be doing the same with my NA. CR's are going to
run me either 900-1200 if I got above the stock numbers. Will be looking
for very low 14's. If not the 13's. Is 10:1 enough for this? You
turbo boys have all those fins pushing it in for you but is the same for the NA
community? I always thought NA needs more. But the drivability comes into
play, more compression needs more higher octane right? So stay at 10 with
a forged piston hat is ceramic coated of go to 10.5 or even 11? didn't mean to
spread this topic out but I want to know more as well. I am leaning
towards 10.5 with the coatings and going 2mm over.
bobk.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Tyson Varosyan" <
tigran@tigran.com>
Sent: Sunday,
December 29, 2002 5:11 AM
> Few things I saw mentioned that raise questions in my mind. I myself
> being in the middle of a rebuild am going to be getting a set of
> pistons that are bored to 3.16, which I still think is very safe.
I
> have an empty shortblock sitting on an engine rack, there is
plenty
> of meat on that thing and it could likely go higher. The pistons
I
> am getting have been designed to completely eliminate the
>
possibility of piston-valve interference which is what killed the
> motor
in the first place. They achieve this while bumping up
> the compression
ratio which from everything I understand should add
> power, add boost
efficiency (more HP/PSI) at the expense of possibly
> breaking rods or
blowing heads if I overboost.
>
> So I would like to be educated
with theories on CRs, boost and bore
> size. Maybe get a debate going?
Like I said, I know a guy whom is
> running this setup and I like it.
Jeff, would love to hear how 3.16 is
> working for you.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 05:30:19 -0800
From: "eK2mfg" <
eK2mfg@attbi.com>
Subject: Team3S: OT -
spelling
I will be installing Office today. Sorry to all who have had to read my
mess. bobk. That is just getting out of hand!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 07:38:52 -0600
From: "cody" <
overclck@satx.rr.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Lets talk compression....
On a N/A motor, with correct timing control (our ecu's are pretty smart,
and like to be safe), I wouldn't think 12:1 is out of the question,
however, to be safe, 11:1 or somewhere close would be optimum. Of
course, all of this requires you to use premium gas, but that should be used
anyways.
There are many street cars running around on 11:1, all the way to 12.5:1
compression ratio on premium gas. What was that about 900 - 1200?
Price for pistons? I was once quoted $650 for oversize, higher CR
pistons from JE, and similar prices from Venolia, and other vendors.
As far as your "speed" conquest, good luck... to pull 13's out of a
n/a 3.0liter block, you will need not only higher CR, port/polished head,
oversize valves, cams designed for high revs, a proper high speed
valvetrain, raise the rev limiter to 8500, of course, LSD is a must at this
point, some nice drag tires would be nice as well, of course, ignition
system, free-flow exhaust, cold air intake, larger injectors / fuel pump,
and a fuel controller to go with, extrude hone the intake manifold, headers,
f-pipe (n/a downpipe), etc... There is more that I am sure I will
think of as soon as I hit the send button...
Of course, the easy way into the 13's - nitrous... for me, stock
motor, k&n, cat-back exhaust, and a 100 shot netted me high
13's...
- -Cody
- -----Original Message-----
From: eK2mfg
Sent: Sunday, December 29,
2002 7:25 AM
Can I add to this? I will be doing the same with my NA. CR's are going to
run me either 900-1200 if I got above the stock numbers. Will be looking
for very low 14's. If not the 13's. Is 10:1 enough for this? You
turbo boys have all those fins pushing it in for you but is the same for the NA
community? I always thought NA needs more. But the drivability comes into
play, more compression needs more higher octane right? So stay at 10 with
a forged piston hat is ceramic coated of go to 10.5 or even 11? didn't mean to
spread this topic out but I want to know more as well. I am leaning
towards 10.5 with the coatings and going 2mm over.
bobk.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:06:57 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Lets talk compression....
>> Jeff, would love to hear how 3.16 is working for you.
If this is directed at me, my engine displace with a 0.050" overbore is
3.056
L (186 CI). The largest "safe" overbore I have heard of is 0.075"
which
results in a true 3.1 L engine. I am not sure what overbore is
required for a
3.16 L engine (without stroking) but it will surely put the
average cylinder
wall thickness below 0.200", which might be the unofficial
minimum amount we
should have. Stock cyl. wall thickness is about 0.25" on
average. More info
on my web page below.
FWIW my "316" designation is patterned after the few Ferrari car names that
used the first two numbers to designate the displacement (CI) per cylinder
and the last number to indicate the number of cylinders. For example, the
308. My engine has 31 CI per cylinder and 6 cylinders ... 316.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:34:46 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Fuel Pressure Gauge
>> ... why monitor what you can't change?
To check for engine or fuel system problems or situations.
Low FP can indicate that
1) the fuel pump is installed incorrectly
(usually the o-ring),
2) the fuel pump has problems (electrical supply or
internal mechanical),
3) there is a restriction of some sort in the supply
line (filter?), or
4) fuel demand exceeds fuel supply (usually because boost
is too high, large
injectors are installed, and the fuel pump is too
small).
High FP can indicate too much fuel flow, often because a high flow pump
(like
the Supra Turbo pump) is installed and wired to get 13.5 volts or more
all
the time and the stock FPR cannot return enough fuel to the tank.
I know these are obvious. But so is monitoring both EGT, both A/F, and
boost.
>> Let me step in here please for my shameless plug. I
sell
>> those adapters that you are talking about.
Though I have not installed Bob's adapters yet, they look like top quality
products and have a great price. I plan to use one of his adapters to
install
new pipes, adj. FPR, and FP sensor where the stock FPR resides.
I also bought Bob's kit to replace the weirdly-curved small pipe that
connects the front to rear fuel rails. As Roger Gerl suggested, this could
be
an alternative site for a FP sensor. In fact, it may be the best site.
Fluid
flows for high to low pressure. And there are seven low-pressure
"sites" in
our fuel system: each of the six injectors and the return line
passage in the
FPR. The pipe connecting front to rear rails is in the middle
(more or less)
of all the "low-pressure zones". The problem, as Roger
indicated, is finding
room there to install a sensor.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 07:15:04 -0800
From: "Tyson Varosyan" <
tigran@tigran.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Lets talk compression....
Bob, I think you already have 10:1 in your motor. 8:1 is stock on the
Turbos only, the NA DOHC (according to Carpoint at least) has 10:1 stock.
My CR will be bumped to 8.3:1
Tyson
------------------------------
Perhaps they are in need of low end torque, and don't want to have to wait
until a turbo spools before they start seeing any power? That's the only
reason I can see to increasing CR and boring or stroking the block. If it
was just a straight line car (i.e. drag racing) drop the CR, bore it, and put
some monster turbos on there. Donald Ashby '93 3000GT VR-4 "Don't drink
and park, accidents cause people!"
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Cooper" <
scooper@paradise.net.nz>
Sent:
Saturday, December 28, 2002 11:47 PM
> Boring the block increases the chance of the block splitting under
> high HP as Nissan RB26 blocks do.
>
> Why would you want to
increase the CR? I would be lowering it instead
> to put in more
boost.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 08:33:10 -0700
From: "Jim Floyd" <
jim_floyd7@earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp??? (was: Just posted this on 3SI)
Roger,
What are the three places in the heads that need to be
ground ?
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 11:42:14 EST
From:
NETM1NDER@aol.comSubject: Team3S: Tec
Performance Rear Strut Tower Brace
Subj: Tec Performance Rear Strut Tower Brace
Hi all. The rear brace is ready, have not had time to post on my web site
yet sorry.
Price does not include shipping & handling.
Colors are: Interior black wrinkle or Plain Aluminum (no finish, can be
polished).
* Rear brace = $250.00.
** Rear brace with support bracket for
removable sunroof model = $285.00.
*** Rear brace with support bracket
= $285.00 (for those of you who want
to tie a
harness too the safe way).
Options:
1. Support brackets: $57.00 a pair (right & left ).
2.
Custom molded Side covers (coming soon).
Sunroof model: $35.00
each.
Plain model: $30.00 each.
* covers not
included.
** This will allow you to be able to tie a harness to the brace with the
support bracket which is bolted to the brace mounts & the frame of the
car, you will need to change the 4 studs that are mounted to your sunroof
mount which are supplied with the support brackets ).
*** You will need to make & weld a mount (bracket) in order to
use these brackets. P.S mounts for this ready to be welded will be
available only if we have enough demand.
(In order to use a harness safely you need the Support Brackets)
Chris 95VR4 (tecperformance.com)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 18:00:36 +0100
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp??? (was: Just posted this on 3SI)
- - Port matching (and exhaust manifold porting of course)
- - optimize
the split channels at the intake valves to support the non dual spray pattern
injectors more
- - optimize the exhaust path as there is an edge after the
valve channel that may hinder good flow
I discussed the heads with a long year Audi, Porsche an BMW tuner and he
identified these three points as the most important ones. Also he opened
the exhaust path and the exhaust valve stem was too much exposed to the
exhaust gases. But it still has less diameter than the intake to increase the
flow on the exhaust side. See pictures of the head mods here :
http://www.rtec.ch/upgrade_project.html
On the backside, it is very hard to tune the A/F in now as the changed head
flow seems to cause a really different flow characteristic over stock and
the ARC is just too rough to use for them (2% adjusting)...time for an AEM
;-) he also bored out the inner part of the fuel rail where the injectors are
pushed in. He identified that with larger injectors their large input hole
IS COVERED up to 1/4 by the aluminum of the fuel rails !!! Unfortunately,
he screwed up the inner side and the rail leaks now. I should comment this
stuff on the web page but there is just not enough time :-(
> What are the three places in the heads that
need to be ground ?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:43:06 EST
From:
NETM1NDER@aol.comSubject: Team3S:
Steering wheels
Does anyone know what brand or make of steering wheel will fit on my 94VR4?
Thanks.
Chris 95VR4 (tecperformance.com)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 11:57:18 -0600
From: "Matt Jannusch" <
mjannusch@attbi.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
> Increasing the compression ratio is definitely a bad idea. Better one
> lowers it while increasing pressure...
Hmmm, that's not what the DSM guys are doing to get more power. They
like to put 8.5:1 compression pistons in to make more power. I'm
running 8.3:1 in my VR4 and it hasn't changed much in the way of how the
car reacts at various boost levels, other than making more power.
1.0 bar of boost is still as safe as it was before at stock 8:1
compression.
> Forged pistons, 3.1 l max size. Good ignition stuff that provides an
> optimum spark. With 20 psi of boost, the 550hp at the crank should be
> achieved.
Forged pistons are a good idea for motors pumping out lots of power - but
not required. Matt Monett has proven that if you tune on the safe
side the shortblock will survive big power.
> What do we additionally need to get 800hp ? Lowering the CR to
8,
Stock is 8.0:1. Are you saying to go lower than that to make more
power?
> optimizing the intake paths, optimize the heads, increase limiter,
> solid lifters, GT 399, 1000cc injectors (~831 hp at 80% IDC), free
> exhaust paths, good cooling and ~30 psi at 8500 rpms....
I'd agree that optimizing flow is going to be a big part of getting more
power. I'd also add that getting away from the TD04 exhaust housing
design on the turbos is going to be important. Much more efficient
turbos are available now, and headers should be made available (for a reasonable
price) that allow us to make use of these improved turbo designs.
Increasing the revlimiter is another great way to make more
horsepower.
If the DSM guys can get 700 HP out of their 2.0L motors AT THE WHEELS
(Brent Rau), theoretically we should be able to get 975 HP at the crank
out of ours without a whole lot of problem. ;-) Its the slower pace
of R&D on our cars and the high expense of the bleeding-edge parts
that's hurting us.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:00:00 -0500
From: "Bill vp" <
billvp@highstream.net>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: Fuel Pressure Gauge
Is there any use in having a fuel pressure gauge if you have a non-"hot
wired pump" and have plenty of fuel as monitored by o2 voltages?
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Lucius
Sent: Sunday, December
29, 2002 7:37 AM
Being one of the very few 3S member who actually monitor fuel line
pressure, I can comment. I would suggest NOT installing a T adapter at
this time (even if you know what sensor you plan to get and what its
fitting is).
In fact, I feel monitoring fuel line pressure is so important, that I
installed this sensor before I even bought a boost controller.
------------------------------
Yes, but they are limiting the boost they can run.
you will make more power with higher compression, but in the end, the lower
compression motor WILL make more power because he can move a LOT more air
thru the engine.
raising CR on a turbo motor is a compromise for poor people. Add
boost, not compression.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Matt Jannusch wrote:
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:28:16 -0800
From: "Chris Winkley" <
Chris_Winkley@adp.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
Matt...
You raise two good points:
1. We should be very clear about whether we're talking crank hp or wheel
hp. IMO there's a huge (~25%) difference. Most "everyone" now talks wheel
hp as it's the only number that makes any difference (again, IMO). Who
cares if you can claim 1000 hp at the crank but can only transfer half of that
to the wheels???
2. There's also a HUGE difference between talking streetable cars and
trailer queens that are built for the 1/4 mile. Does Brent Rau's car pass
the emission tests in any state in the country? Is it street legal (e.g.,
does it have bumpers that meet federal safety requirements)? Can he drive it
back and forth to work, or take it on the open track? Or was it strictly
built for the dragstrip? Having run the 1/4 mile for nearly 30 years, I
clearly distinguish between a car that requires a 1/2 ton pickup and trailer to
get it to the starting line versus my puny car that has a current set of
tags and is registered and insured for street use. Without a doubt, a
timeslip is a timeslip and the trailer queens will often have the best
times (although I've been amazed at some of the trailered Detroit Iron
machines that are still running 13s and 14s) but you won't find them on
the freeway driving home next to me, nor will they be able to swap a set
of rims and rubber and spend the next day on the open track.
I believe it's possible to run a single digit 1/4 mile (and I'm counting on
Arty to set that record) but he, again, won't have a streetable car. So,
I'll rephrase my question since it hasn't been answered...
Who has had a dyno run that shows 800+ hp at the wheels (or, for that
matter, even at the crank)?
This was the statement from "
dougusmagnus@attbi.com" that brought me
out of the woodwork..."To be fair, these 800 hp + cars have upgraded
pistons, rods and crankshafts plus a whole page worth of other upgrades
and modifications." Perhaps Doug wasn't even talking about a VR4 or Stealth
TT???
Looking forward...Chris
- -----Original Message-----
From: Matt Jannusch
[mailto:mjannusch@attbi.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 9:57 AM
<snip>
If the DSM guys can get 700 HP out of their 2.0L motors AT THE WHEELS
(Brent Rau), theoretically we should be able to get 975 HP at the crank
out of ours without a whole lot of problem. ;-) Its the slower pace
of R&D on our cars and the high expense of the bleeding-edge parts
that's hurting us.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:05:19 -0800
From: "Bob Forrest" <
bf@bobforrest.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: Brake job
> From: "Desert Fox" <
bigfoot@simmgene.com>:
> >
I'm getting geared up to replace all brake pads and get all four
> >
rotors turned. I remember hearing folks talk about barbequing their
> >
brake pads prior to installation. Is this something I should do?
> >
Paul/. > > 95 black 3000GT VR-4
-
------------------------------>
From: "Geoff Mohler" <
gemohler@www.speedtoys.com>
>
No. Esp. if you are using porterfield R4-S pads. the new pads don't
> require heat treatment..it'll shock them.
-
------------------------------>
Unless the 'new' R4-S pads are a different compound from the last 2 sets
I've bought from Geoff (I hope not, since they're great!), the barbecue
process definitely *does* improve performance. My first R4-S pads
were not BBQ'd-- they took longer to heat up and get to max efficiency at
the track, and they squealed more on the street. The first set
didn't last as long, either. But the second, BBQ'd set were great right
away on the track, and quieter on the street. The s-l-o-w BBQ
treatment I used (see our Team3S website for
instructions) outgasses the pads
gradually. BBQ-ing is a much *lesser* shock to the pads than the
first hard stop you would make if the brakes had been installed without
the BBQ treatment. This is both logical *and* proven by my
experience. YMMV, especially if there is a new R4-S compound that comes
"pre-outgassed" (???). I need a new set of front pads, and I plan to
BBQ them
again. My results convinced me, and Andie Lin's
theoretical discussion about
"heat pre-treatment" (also on the BBQ page on
the Team3S website) bears it
out: When done properly (without direct
flame exposure) and slowly, BBQ-ing *works*.
Best,
- --Forrest
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 22:49:30 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: Fuel Pressure Gauge
>> Is there any use in having a fuel pressure gauge if you have a
>> non-"hot wired pump" and have plenty of fuel as monitored by o2
>> voltages?
If you are of the mentality that monitoring engine operating conditions to
be
sure it is operating "safely" (fill in your own definition of that term)
is a
waste of time and money, then no, there is no point in monitoring fuel
pressure --- or the O2 sensors, or the exhaust gas temperature, or the
manifold pressure, or the knock values, or any number of other
conditions.
I would say that if your engine is entirely stock including boost control,
then why bother with all this extra monitoring and measurement stuff?
However,
if you are inclined to modify and tweek, then I think monitoring is
a wise
and cost-effective use of money and time, especially if you do not
have
*extensive* experience with our cars (which adequately describes
myself).
BTW, IMHO stock O2 sensors cannot tell you unequivocally that you
have
"plenty of fuel", but they can tell you that you do not.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 00:01:55 +0100
From: "Roger Gerl" <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
I do not fully agree with you Chris :
> You raise two good points:
>
> 1. We should be very clear
about whether we're talking crank hp or
> wheel hp. IMO there's a huge
(~25%) difference. Most "everyone" now
> talks wheel hp as it's the only
number that makes any difference
> (again, IMO). Who cares if you can
claim 1000 hp at the crank but can
> only transfer half of that to the
wheels???
Never, ever again speak of a percentage due to the drivetrain loss... it's
wrong ! We had this discussion 100 times before and today it is clear that
the loss is on between 80 and 110hp, basta, nada percente. The drivetrain
loss is therefore a constant for a specific car when the engine is getting
modded and therefore we are to increase power at the engine not the
drivetrain. It comes in play if one installs drivetrain parts like an
other LSD, carbon drive shaft and so. This is why car makers speak of 300hp for
our cars ... this is what the engine does and the power to the ground
depends on very much variables that cannot be taken in the calculation
well. And this is why ALL car makers care in engine horsepower. When it comes to
a race we then also speak of weight and air resistance and more.
> 2. There's also a HUGE difference between talking streetable cars and
> trailer queens that are built for the 1/4 mile. Does Brent Rau's car
> pass the emission tests in any state in the country? Is it street
> legal (e.g., does it have bumpers that meet federal safety
>
requirements)? Can he drive it back and forth to work, or take it on
>
the open track?
I remember that there was a white 9 sec Porsche in a Turbo mag where the
racer is always driving he car to the events :-) I have to change a lot in
my car (two day work) to pass the inspections for the street legal stamp.
So guess what I would have to do with such a 4-banger (that has a much more
stable block, IMHO)
> I believe it's possible to run a single digit 1/4 mile (and I'm
> counting on Arty to set that record) but he, again, won't have a
> streetable car. So, I'll rephrase my question since it hasn't been
> answered...
Well, with a carbon body, plastic glasses, no ABS and otherwise striped car
... yes. But not with our "weak" little V6 engine.
> Who has had a dyno run that shows 800+ hp at the wheels (or, for that
> matter, even at the crank)?
Nobody ... and I also doubt that Arty ever will see such a figure on an AWD
dyno.
Our dyno here had an AWD Porsche with 1033hp (always engine) on the dyno
and therefore it's possible to have a car tested on that high level ...
but no way our tranny, transfer case and transaxle will be able to support
such a huge torque ... would be too nice if it is possible.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 15:51:18 -0800
From: "eK2mfg" <
eK2mfg@attbi.com>
Subject: Team3S: CAPS
program
I finally got a service that didn't take all day to download 100mb of
stuff. I find that jumping back and forth between Norco Mits part section
and the CAPS I can get accurate prices on things. Thanks to those who
helped and even slapped me in the head verbally (Mr. Forrest) to figure out how
to both read and follow instructions. They work, it works, got the info I
need without dealing with the local bimbo behind the counter and trying to
explain to Little John at Norco to see what I am saying.
bobk.
spending money as fast as he can now!
------------------------------
If its not a percentage..then what is it?
You mean, to move at all, I'm moving about 100Hp into the drivetrain?
------------------------------
No, you should not be heat treating them anymore.
You can if you wish, but the R4-S pads no longer require heat to settle
them in, only a day or so of normal driving to set the surface.
I've confirmed this from them in the last few months.
> Unless the 'new' R4-S pads are a different compound from the last 2
> sets I've bought from Geoff (I hope not, since they're great!), the
> barbecue process definitely *does* improve performance. My first
R4-S
> pads were not BBQ'd-- they took longer to heat up and get to max
> efficiency at the track, and they squealed more on the street.
The
> first set didn't last as long, either. But the second, BBQ'd
set were
> great right away on the track, and quieter on the
street. The s-l-o-w
> BBQ treatment I used (see our Team3S website
for
> instructions) outgasses the pads gradually. BBQ-ing is a much
*lesser* shock
> to the pads than the first hard stop you would make if
the brakes had been
> installed without the BBQ treatment. This is
both logical *and* proven by my
> experience. YMMV, especially if
there is a new R4-S compound that comes
> "pre-outgassed" (???). I
need a new set of front pads, and I plan to BBQ them
> again.
My results convinced me, and Andie Lin's theoretical discussion about
>
"heat pre-treatment" (also on the BBQ page on the Team3S website) bears
it
> out: When done properly (without direct flame exposure) and
slowly, BBQ-ing
> *works*.
>
> Best,
> --Forrest
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 20:37:03 -0600
From: "cody" <
overclck@satx.rr.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
I personally believe it's a percentage, however not a certain
percentage. I believe it changes according to transmission and
driveline speed and rate of acceleration.
- -Cody
- -----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Mohler
Sent: Sunday,
December 29, 2002 8:00 PM
If its not a percentage..then what is it?
You mean, to move at all, I'm moving about 100Hp into the drivetrain?
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Roger Gerl wrote:
------------------------------
Ahh..we agree.
It is a percentage, but the percentage grows as engine output grows.
As output grows..stresses change alignment of shafts, gears, bearings..the
whole driveline flexes in response to it..and you will lose more HP from
the friction.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, cody wrote:
> I personally believe it's a percentage, however not a certain
>
percentage. I believe it changes according to transmission and
>
driveline speed and rate of acceleration.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 20:27:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Andrew Wert <
mrstealth13@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Engine Rebuild Gasket Kit
Hello,
I need to get an engine rebuild gasket kit for a
Mitsubishi
3.0 V6 DOHC(non-turbo). Where can I get
one and what is the best one to
get and how much am I
going to have to spend. Thank you very much for
your
time.
Andrew - PA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 21:15:06 -0800
From: "Chris Winkley" <
Chris_Winkley@adp.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
'yo Roger...
Now, here we've found a subject that gets a passionate response,
eh?
:-)
I recall these conversations, but still believe that it's wheel hp that
makes the difference. Otherwise, how can we effectively compare one
vehicle to another? I'm not talking about one 3KGT to another, but a 3KGT
to a Porsche, or a 3KGT to a 4 wheel drive truck. The engine hp could be
the same, but the wheel hp could be a major variation along with the
resulting difference in "actual" performance (and, yes, I know we have to
factor in the driver's abilities as well). I know you actually admitted that
it's the timeslip that tells the final story once (I kept the e-mail) and
I personally believe it's true. The dyno is just a static measure under
controlled conditions and does not represent what a car will really do when on
the road, on the track, or on the dragstrip. That's one of the reasons our
AWD makes us such strong contenders even though we have these heavy pigs
of cars (as bad as any Mercedes Benz). There are plenty of people with
pretty heavily modded cars that turn "terrible" 1/4 mile times and there are
others with many less mods that do better. There are very few cars that
out race me on the freeway, not because they don't have faster cars, but
because I am willing to take greater risks (I'm not saying this is a "good"
thing, just a fact).
Personally, if we wanted to eliminate all the external factors (road
conditions, driver skill, etc.) we should really be talking about wheel
hp/lb as the most accurate measure. A light car like the new Mini Cooper S
or the Subaru WRX will kick the heck out of many higher hp cars just because
they weigh so little.
Looking forward...Chris
- -----Original Message-----
From: Roger Gerl
[mailto:roger.gerl@bluewin.ch]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 3:02 PM
<snip>
Never, ever again speak of a percentage due to the drivetrain loss... it's
wrong ! We had this discussion 100 times before and today it is clear that
the loss is on between 80 and 110hp, basta, nada percente. The drivetrain
loss is therefore a constant for a specific car when the engine is getting
modded and therefore we are to increase power at the engine not the
drivetrain. It comes in play if one installs drivetrain parts like an
other LSD, carbon drive shaft and so. This is why car makers speak of 300hp for
our cars ... this is what the engine does and the power to the ground
depends on very much variables that cannot be taken in the calculation
well. And this is why ALL car makers care in engine horsepower. When it comes to
a race we then also speak of weight and air resistance and more.
<snip>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 00:55:24 -0800
From: "dakken" <
dougusmagnus@attbi.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
> Who has had a dyno run that shows 800+ hp at the wheels (or, for that
> matter, even at the crank)?
>
> This was the statement from
"
dougusmagnus@attbi.com" that
brought me
> out of the woodwork..."To be fair, these 800 hp + cars have
upgraded
> pistons, rods and crankshafts plus a whole page worth of other
> upgrades and modifications." Perhaps Doug wasn't even talking about a
> VR4 or Stealth TT???
>
> Looking forward...Chris
Alright, this is the 2nd time that Chris has attributed the 800 hp claim to
me. If you look aaallllllllll the way back at the post that I was
replying to which I included in my original post, then you will see that I
was replying to this from Dennis Ninneman:
> I came into this a bit late, but has anyone commented about the stock
> clutch in this application? It is my understanding that the stock
> clutch has a finite limitation regarding HP and torque. With
800hp
> and a substantial increase in torque (although not mentioned, but
> assumed) even 'normal' shifting could cause slippage of the clutch
> with maximum throttle application ......... especially in lower
gears.
> So, this scenario would cause accelerated driveline wear
which
> includes clutch facing.
There were several other people in the same thread speaking about a
theoretical 800 hp car.
The context of the thread is talking about drive train and engine upgrades
to handle the power. ((( I ))) never claimed that such a 3S car has
ever had 800 hp verified or if one even existed. Even GT Pro's
supposed 1000 hp car still doesn't have a dyno printout to prove it. I was
talking about the many 3S and non 3S cars that aspire to make big
hp. Open up any performance magazine and you will see that every
engine that makes the kind of power that was discussed in the original
thread has upgraded engine internals. I have yet to see a car that
has a stock engine make over 500 hp other than the exotic cars i.e.
Ferrari, Lamborghini, Vector etc.
Geeze, take one sentence out of my lengthy post and go ape over it.
<sigh>
Doug
92 Stealth RT TT
------------------------------
End of Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth V2
#38
**************************************